Microsoft Azure App Service Reviews

We are using Microsoft Azure App Service in systems, such as government, credit loan, and app services.

The most valuable feature of Microsoft Azure App Service is autoscaling and resource grouping. Additionally, the integration works well, it is easy to do.

Microsoft Azure App Service has a lot of complexity because there are a lot of options and functionality. It is simple to become confused, there are many technical elements to learn before you can utilize the solution. If they could make the solution easier to use it would be a benefit. 

In an upcoming release, mobile device usage could be a better experience.

I have been using Microsoft Azure App Service for approximately five years.

The solution is highly stable.

I rate the stability of Microsoft Azure App Service a ten out of ten.

With all the deployments we have in many companies there are only a few users that use it.

I rate the scalability of Microsoft Azure App Service a nine out of ten.

The initial setup of Microsoft Azure App Service is simple. 

The price of the support could improve. It is expensive.

I rate the price from Microsoft Azure App Service a one out of ten.

I did compare this solution with Amazon AWS and Amazon and Amazon EC2. They are all comparable solutions. What stands out the most in Microsoft Azure App Service is the speed. Selecting the best solution will also depend on the use case.

We utilize Azure Cosmos DB, which has a distinct architecture compared to other services. Initially, we were concerned about the high costs associated with it since every document incurs charges due to Azure's containerization of every collection. However, we discovered that running it in a single container eliminates this cost.

I rate Microsoft Azure App Service a nine out of ten.

We mostly use Microsoft Azure App Service for websites, such as content management systems, WordPress, and others, which are built on Azure Web Repair and App Services.

I like that it's a ready-to-use, out-of-the-box solution that provides all of the necessary functions for customers, such as codes that can be quickly switched from the production version, or from test and DEV versions to production. 

Quote backup and restore vertical and horizontal scaling, and DEV scaling are all available. In this case, developers do not need to learn and spend their time on the configuration for the platform, just coding and asking to compute, which they need and that configuration, which platform provides them.

Price could be reduced.

Particularly with Azure Web Apps. According to their current architecture, moving services from one Azure subscription to another is difficult.

Customers can consume the Azure platform through a variety of subscriptions from various partners, financial visions, current political visions, and so on. Some services on the Microsoft Azure platform can be moved automatically from one subscription to another based on security and financial rules, while others cannot.

Azure Web Apps are the type of service that does not automatically move from subscription to subscription, and region to region. A lot of manual labor must be performed by their organization, customer, and engineers, if necessary.

They must pay too much attention to how to plan this, how to switch off, switch on, on which days, at what times, and so on. A lot of administrative work is done, but it's not very good. 

It would be fantastic if Microsoft morphed after my exit service, removing it from subscriptions and moving it to different regions, especially for that service.

I have used Microsoft Azure App Service for the last 12 months.

Because it is cloud-based, there is only one version.

Microsoft Azure App Service is stable. It's good enough. it's present here, but anyone can take it if it's needed. Especially now, Microsoft offers a very special support program in Ukraine. For example, if a customer needs to support their business processes, they can use any Azure solution for free until the end of the calendar year.

Microsoft Azure App Service is a scalable solution.

We are a technical support team, and we handle all of our support needs. We have not contacted technical support.

I am Microsoft-certified trained. This is why I don't require any additional support assistance; I train others. In other words, every Microsoft commercial partner receives direct Microsoft support. For example, Amazon provides additional information from the traditional partner channel, or by extra support, through premier support contracts. All of them must be present on a commercial basis in order to provide truly high-quality services to customers.

I am a technical architect and I have some commercial partners. I work as a system integrator. It is a software, global company that specializes in delivering cloud software, solutions, and services. As for this, I have over 25 years of experience with all stacks, including Azure, AWS, Google GCP, Oracle Cloud, and others. I was very interested in the Zimbra and Microsoft Exchange compilation because, in my opinion, based on my experience and statistics, Zimbra is not widely used in our accounting and based installation. However, one commercial customer inquired about my thoughts on Zimbra in conjunction with Exchange. It was very unfamiliar to me, which is why I attempted to conduct independent research on Zimbra solutions. Who and how are relevant to that question. I don't think we'll implement Zimbra because it's outside of our stack, but it was very interesting to get some perspective on the questions, nothing special, just vision and experience and growth.

We use what our customers requested from the Microsoft stacks, which are mostly infrastructure as a service solutions. It is a very limited number of PaaS installations or implementations, such as Aurora or Microsoft SQL, Azure SQL as a service, web applications on Azure, and so on. Of course, SaaS, such as Office 365, is a good option, but I can't say what other options aren't because the Microsoft stack is our primary commercial platform for our sources. It's fantastic; it provides us with some commercial advantages.

We recently used Azure, virtual machines, virtual networks, and virtual storage, as well as Azure IaaS Stack, Azure Virtual Machines, and Azure Storage.

Because Azure Web Services is based on the Azure IaaS Stack, it is infrastructure as a service. It's a platform as a service that's based on IaaS for some purposes, but our customers don't need the services to bring ready-to-use apps because they don't have a lot of education and institutes. Overall, Qualys solutions are not widely used in Ukraine, for example, by schools, governments, and institutes, due to commercial issues and, in particular, our notice time.

We chose Microsoft Azure App Service because the customer inquired. We are a very commercial company, and if the market or the customer did not request it, we did not provide it. If the customer requests it, we will provide it.

I don't recall any problems with the initial setup at the time because I believe it was adequate. I didn't hear anything about widespread or public knowledge of some issues in that area.

Most importantly, not too much. The customer has a high level of financial maturity to value DPI; they do not discuss ROI or other metrics. They simply book on current, can say spending, if current model spending is adequate.

Price could always be cheaper.

It is not about the license fees, but rather about the pay-as-you-go services.

Customers consume varying amounts of quality services and pay roughly the same amount. Where there are different customer sizes, some customers consume $5,000 US dollars per month. I have some customers who pay and consume more than $20,000 US dollars per month, for example. It is determined by customer sizes and requirements, which vary from month to month.

I would advise paying closer attention to the architecture of the solutions. If the architecture is well designed, this will be a very good placement on cloud solutions; otherwise, it will be placed incorrectly. It's a common situation, and owing too much money as it should be.

I would rate Microsoft Azure App Service a nine out of ten.

We are a Microsoft partner.

It simplifies the deployment of applications, including those built with technologies like .NET or UCS, making it particularly valuable for microservices applications. It streamlines the deployment process, allowing developers to easily deploy and manage their applications without requiring dedicated DevOps engineers.

The primary and standout feature is ease of deployment.

Having a surplus of tutorials from Microsoft, rather than relying solely on documentation or features from other sources like YouTube, can be beneficial.

It offers excellent stability capabilities.

It offers configurability through the Azure portal. Adjusting resources such as CPU or memory is a straightforward process, making it easy to scale up or down based on your requirements. We manage multiple projects. Each project, whether it's a toll-free initiative or any other, typically involves three or four developers who contribute to the content and development processes.

Deployment is a straightforward process: after coding, you package the application into a folder, compress it into a ZIP file, and execute a command line with the ZIP file's path. This command includes the ZIP file's location, and Azure App Service takes care of running the application and exposing it without any further complexities. I can handle the deployment on my own.

The cost is reasonable.

Overall, I would rate it eight out of ten.

Our primary use case for this solution is hosting web applications which can be Linux or Windows-based. Microsoft Azure App Service is a multi-tenant environment where customers can load and run the application. It is similar to a platform as a service.

The most valuable feature is the ability to scale the application. It scales dynamically and comes with two features. If you can find a fabulous feature in the Azure Functions app, it allows you to scale, so you don't need to worry about manually scaling or setting any scaling parameters. Then it automatically does the scaling on its own.

The other feature comes with VNet integration. So we can connect the Microsoft Azure App Service to a VNet so that it can privately communicate with other resources within Azure with a private IP. It also comes with the CDN feature, which can automatically load in some of your configuration files and use it instead of going back to storage to pick that up. It also has awesome features like backup, so you don't need to set up a recovery service, as it automatically does that. So you can back up the existing state of your application in case of any loss. In a nutshell, it has dynamic tools.

The outbound connectivity is not great but can be improved because, on virtual machines, the Microsoft Azure App Service uses four or five outbound IPs. So basically, if you want to communicate with an external source, you can use outbound IPs. For example, you must whitelist the outbound IP when communicating with an SQL database externally. However, because it's a multi-tenant environment and other customer applications are being shared on a skills tab, there are always limitations in the smart port. So each customer has a particular allocated smart port, which they should exhaust. It helps to work with the code. Regardless of features like a firewall where they have a hub and an environment they have features like a front door which can increase the smart port's limits to about 64,000. Hence, it will be good to have one IP without needing to add any other infrastructure.

Additionally, they can improve scaling the typical environment in terms of scalability. I believe the limit for the multi-tenant environment is about 20 to 30 maximum on the PV3. So if they can increase that, other than having these significant scaling limits for the Microsoft Azure App Service environment, which is about 200, that will also help.

Also, dedicating one outbound IP for App Service will go a long way.

We have been using this solution for approximately three years.

The solution is stable.

The solution is scalable.

They have a good support team. We don't think the front-end support is of concern because the front end has to talk to the internal respective application engineering team. Sometimes the core platform issues may take about two months or more. They can answer your queries, and they can help you do investigations.

Additionally, depending on your support package, if you have a premium plan, you get the best because you have support engineers who are intelligent. But you get different services with the pro-direct support plan. There's miscommunication between the front end and the application engineering team. I think that's something that they need to improve. On a premium plan, you get excellent support. I rate support for pro-direct a six out of ten and premium support an eight out of ten.

Positive

The initial setup is easy. You can set it up through the portal, a template, or Terraform. It integrates with other features like Docker so if you have your image in Docker Hub or ECR, you can select the image, and it pulls those images in and runs your application.

It has many features, and other deployment methods like Bitbucket, FTP, DevOps, and GitLab can integrate these things into Microsoft Azure App Service. It is easy to set up because you don't need to start building servers. We also don't need to complete any maintenance. 

The price of this solution is competitive. It works as an App Service plan so you can have multiple App Services that are part of a plan. So, for example, you can have about 10 App Services in an App Service plan. It's like a VM, where you have different applications running and you are not charged for all of the applications. However, you are being charged for the plan, so I think it's worth having that setup. At the same time, you need to plan how your costs will be and their ranges of variations. As we call it, SKU is where you can easily factor in so it is okay in terms of price.

One of the best products is the Functions app, which comes with serverless computing in the sense that it gives you about a million transactions for free every month. That is one of the cheapest. So you don't need to worry about how long your function triggers, just that if it scales more than that and performs more transactions, you get charged for it. The exact cost depends on the SKUs.

I rate the solution an eight out of ten. 

Our primary use case for this solution is for hosting web apps so people can deploy this application and host it on an app service.

We have found the scalability feature most valuable. When you host an application on Microsoft Azure App Service and have a lot of users, there are times that there will be high traffic. High traffic is when many people try to access the Microsoft Azure App Service simultaneously. So Microsoft Azure App Service can scale up to meet the demand of those trying to access it. It has been at approximately 98% availability, and if any maintenance is required, it will notify you. You can find an alternative solution and use multiple instances to mitigate the downtime.

For now, I don't think there are any improvements to highlight.

We have been using this solution for approximately a year and a half.

We have had a fun experience with customer service and support, but sometimes customer service and support can be challenging. However, all the challenges we face are related to technology.

There are two options for setting up the CLI shop and the portal. In terms of the portal, you can easily create an app service from the Azure portal. Some people are comfortable using the CLI shop, and some don't like going to the portal and creating the app service. I believe Azure did very well in that aspect.

The pricing is quite fair because of its scalability. Before you choose the type of plan you want, you should look at the workloads that the apps have and what your organization needs. For example, if you have minimal traffic, you can use the basic plan. There's a plan for every type of workload which determines the subscription cost.

I rate this solution nine out of ten. The solution is good. If somebody is considering using Microsoft Azure App Service, it is the best because it's easy to use, and there's a plan for every type of workload. Some features can give you certificates for the domain. If you already have an existing domain, you can bring it in to do it from Azure. Additionally, you can buy your domain and bind it to Azure, but if you already have an existing third-party domain, you can also use it with Azure.

We use this solution for everything I do. We use it on e-commerce platforms and for business activities. Currently, we're using the latest version of the App. However, we used the e-commerce version between 2019 and 2020.

The most valuable feature is the Power Apps because it is very user-friendly. In comparison, the Logic Apps and Azure functions are very robust.

I can't pinpoint a specific feature that can be included in the next release because Microsoft is making new changes to the app every day. Currently, everything works perfectly. 

We have been using this solution for five years. I am a Cloud Solution Architect with TCS, primarily on the Azure front. I research different types of Power Apps. I focus on POCs and deal with architecture data.

This solution is stable as we haven't faced problems working with it yet.

This solution is scalable.

I can't comment on my experience with the customer service and support team because we connect directly with Microsoft whenever we have any issues.

Positive

It is easy to set up if you have experience and knowledge working with it, but the setup is complex if you have no experience. 

Regarding pricing, I can't comment on pricing because I don't deal with issues related to pricing. 

I rate this solution an eight out of ten. My advice would be to gain experience, get an MSN license and practice before working in production environments.

I use Azure App Service as an application deployment environment. It allows me to access the FTB directly in deployed applications and change certain rules and regulations like filtering of access management.

The best feature is scalability, which allows you to target potential clients worldwide by connecting the application to a local server. This makes the application readily accessible, and the response time will be much better.

If you're on the cloud, you just get a web interface without much detail for additional configuration or the authority to configure the root or system-level configuration. This is a weakness in the cloud version compared to desktop. In the next release, Microsoft should provide additional options for configuring the deployment environment.

I've been using this solution for three to four years.

This is a stable solution.

Scalability is one of this solution's strongest points.

Microsoft's technical support meets expectations - sometimes there's a bug on their side, and we have some downtime, but it's usually minimal. However, there are some issues with technical staff passing cases on instead of dealing with them.

Neutral

Azure App Service is expensive compared to its competitors, especially its cloud-only version. I would rate their pricing as two out of five.

I would rate Azure App Services as eight out of ten.

We use Azure App Service for both app development and deployment. Sometimes, we use it for testing, and we also have several products running in production on the platform.

One valuable feature of Azure App Service for us is its integration with Azure DevOps, which we heavily rely on in our development process. It is user-friendly once you understand how it works, although getting to that point can be a challenge. Additionally, Azure App Service offers excellent integration with Microsoft infrastructure and developer solutions.

In terms of improvement, the technical support could be better.

I have been working with Microsoft Azure App Service for almost six years.

We have faced reliability issues due to configuration issues on our end, not the technology itself. While Azure App Service provides information on problems, sometimes it is not sufficient, and resolving issues can be time-consuming.

In terms of scalability, we haven't encountered any issues with Azure App Service. 

The support I have received, mostly from individuals in India, hasn't been very helpful. They tend to send long emails with lots of links, which often don't directly address my specific issue. This can be frustrating and time-consuming, as it doesn't efficiently solve the problem at hand. Azure App Service might offer better support with higher-priced plans, but those might be too costly for smaller external companies like ours. I would rate the support as a three out of ten.

Negative

I have used SolarWinds along with Azure App Service for web application development.

Installing Azure App Service has been challenging at times. Whether deploying through Azure pipelines or directly from Azure, the process can be time-consuming due to configuration complexities. We have encountered instances where resolving issues took days or even two to three weeks to complete the deployment.

Microsoft offers various pricing plans and licensing options, which initially seem reasonable, especially for small companies like ours. However, as we grow, the pricing can become less flexible. We pay for Azure monthly, while some licenses, like the Action Pack, are paid annually.

Overall, I would rate Azure App Service as an eight out of ten. It is a good tool but could be more user-friendly.